director of the Chinese National Library, states that he recalls the
strikes and demonstrations by Chinese students in December 1935, and
that it is absurd to say that I was the instigator of Chinese student



428 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION

strikes. I also have a letter to the same general effect from Col.
William Mayer, who was then military attache, United States Em-
bassy in China.

I ask permission to file these letters with the committee.

Senator Ttdings. I think you had better read those exhibits, too,^
if they are not too long. I think you will throw light on the contro-
versy here and we will all want to hear them, and it will save reading
them in private.

Senator Lodge. Will you identify the T. L. Yuan?

Dr. Lattimore. At that time he was director of the Chinese Na-
tional Library in Peiping, which is the equivalent of the Congressional
Library here.

Senator Lodge. Has he an affiliation with the Nationalist Govern-
ment ?

Dr. Lattimore. The library was supported, as I recall, partly

No ; the building was partly from a grant by the Rockefeller Foun-
dation; but the main support of the library came from the Chinese
Government ; that is, the Kuomintang Government.

Senator TI'dings. While the doctor is getting a little breathing
spell, Mr. Fortas, would you, as counsel, like to read that record for
him ? It will be all right.

Mr. FoRTAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a letter to Arnold, Fortas & Porter, Ring Building, Washing-
ton, D. C—

Dear Sirs —

and it is on the letterhead of the National Librarj^ of Peiping, Peiping^
China.

Senator Tydings. What is the date?

Mr. FoRTAs. April 3, 1950.

Senator Tydixgs. Go ahead.

Mr. FoRTAs (reading) :

My attention has been called to one of Senator McCarthy's charges against Dr.
Lattimore that the latter had instigated Chinese student demonstrations in
December 1935. Since yon are acting as Dr. Lattimore's attorney, I beg to
give you the following statement for your reference :

The strikes and demonstrations by Chinese students in December 1935 were
spontaneous manifestations against the autonomy of north China as engineered
by Japanese militarists. The strikes were started in Peiping on December 9,
1935, and spread rapidly to other cities. Their slogans, if I remember cor-
rectly, included declarations of war against Japan and mobilization of every
soldier for national resistance.

In that particular year Dr. Lattimore lived at .33 Ta Yuan Fu Hutung at
Peiping serving as the editor of Pacific Affairs. In my capacity as director of
the National Library of Peiping, I had many common interests with Dr. Latti-
more and I saw him quite often. To the best of my knowledge, he was at that
time engaged in the study of inner Asian problems and of the Mongolian lan-
guage. Such being the case, it is absurd to say that he was the instigator of
Chinese students' strikes.

The Japanese once charged that our student demonstratiims were led by
American missionary institutions and agitated by American missionaries. This
charge was, of course without any foundation. Even if it wei'e true. Dr. Latti-
more had never been connected with any missionary institutions, a fact which
was well known to his many friends in China.

Hoping the above information will be found helpful.
Very sincerely yours,

T. L. Yuan.

Senator Ttdings. I hope that Dr. Lattimore had some association,
at least, with some of the missionaries.



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 429

Dr. Lattimore. I remember, Senator, lecturing on inner Mongolia
to tlie greatest of all mission institutions, the Yen Chen University,
at about that time.

Senator Tydixgs. Go ahead, Doctor.

Dr. Lattimore. I also have a letter to the same general effect from
Col. William Mayer

Mr. FoRTAS. Shall I read that, Senator?

Senator Tydixgs. Read it, please. You may read it for Dr. Latti-
more.

^Nfr. FoRTAS. It is on the letterhead of Headquarters First Army,
Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Governors Island, New
York 4, N. Y. It is dated April 8, 1950.

Mr. Owen Lattimore,

Wnlter- Tlives Page School of International Relations, the Johns Hopkins
Universitij, Baltimore 18, Md.
Dear Owen : Your letter of April 2 just reached me. As far as I can remem-
ber I have never head mention that you had any connection with the student
agitation that was going on in Peking in the 1930's. There ^^as certainly noth-
ing in the local press and there was never a discussion of your name in connec-
tion with this activity. One point you might consider, if there ever had been
the mention of your name in connection with the students tliat fact would have
shown up in the Embassy and attach'^ reports to Washington. I do not believe
there are any such reports.

.Tust for the record, I was away to Siam a few months in 1930 in connection
with famine relief and in 19.31 in Mongolia, also Manchuria and again in 1932
I was an observer at the iinpleasantness in Shanghai, and then took a trip up
the Yangtze Gorges. Despite tliese trips, however, I believe I most certainly
woiild liave lieard of any rumors linking your name with the student agitation.
Isabel sends her best to you and Eleanor.
Sincerely,

William Mayer,
Colonel, General Staff Corps,

Assistant Chief of Staff Cf-2.

Senator Tydings. Doctor, at any time you would like to rest for a
minute, your statement is long, so do not hesitate to ask for it.

Dr. Lattimore. Thank you very much. Senator.

Second, Senator McCarthy refers to a trip that I made with Philip
J. Jaffe and T. A. Bisson to Yenan. I made such a trip. Some
time in 1987 when I was residing in Peking, Mr. Bisson and Mr. Jaffe
called on me. I had known Bisson slightly as a far-eastern student,
when he was working for, I believe, the Foreign Policy Association
in New York City. I had never before met Jaffe, but I knew of him as
the sponsor of a new magazine, Amerasia, of which I had become a
board member. I also knew that he was a wealthy manufacturer of
Christmas cards. He wanted to make a trip to Yenan, and he and
Bisson wanted me to accompany them because of my knowledge of the
area and the language. I was quite interested in going.

The Communists had taken over that area only about a year be-
fore. Several newspaper men had got in and every newspaper man
in China was trying to get in. It was the biggest news story in China
and all ]>apers in Europe and America were eating it up. I had
never liad any contacts with any Communists in China and I felt that
this trip might enable me to round out my knowledge of the country.
L^nfortunately, when we arrived in Yenan the Communists had set
up a public-relations system so that I was unable to secure direct or
fresh news. It is true, as Senator McCarthy says, that Agnes Smedley
was there at the time. So was Nym Wales, the wife of Edgar Snow.
They were there when we arrived and remained there after we left.



430 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOlSr

There is one additional matter in the McCarthy statement which
might possibly be construed as an attempt to connect me with the im-
proper procuring or sending of information to the Soviet Union. It
IS an attempt to connect me with the Amerasia case. You will recall
that in 1945 some of the people connected with that magazine, as well
as John Service and Andrew Eoth, were arrested on charges relating
to the unlawful procurement and possession of Government documents.
Service and Iloth were not indicted.

I had been on the board of Amerasia from its founding in 1937 until
1941 when I resigned. I was never active as a board member. I con-
sented to go on the board largely because I wanted to show that
Pacific Affairs, the magazine of which I wns editor, did not object to,
but welcomed other periodicals in the same field.

It will be noted that I had no connection witli Amerasia after 1941,
4 years before the arrests in the case that Senator McCarthy mentions.

Nevertheless, the Senator attempts on the most flimsy and trans-
parent basis to insinuate, without saying so, that I had some con-
nection with the Amerasia arrests in 1945. He refers to an affidavit
which he has refused to supply to the effect that the night before
Service, Roth and four codefendants in the Amerasia case were ar-
rested, both Service and Roth were at my house.

The person or persons who made the alleged state)nents to the Sen-
ator are reported Ijy him to have stated that they were present at my
house at the time; that Roth, Service and I "spent a great deal of
time by themselves, discussing certain papers or manuscripts," and
that tlieir actions seemed strange at the time. One of these persons
was reported to have said that I subsequently told him that the three
of us "had been declassifying secret documents."

This is one of those fancifnl distortions that has a remote but per-
verted relationship to fact. On the Sunday prior to the arrests in
the Amerasia case, Mr. Service and Mr. Roth were at my house. I
arranged a small picnic at which, as I recall, we ate hamburgers which
I cooked on the open fire. There were present, in addition to Roth
and Service, Miss Rose Yardumian, now married and livincf, I be-
lieve, in England; Prof. Malcolm C. Moos of the Johns Hopkins
University and his fiancee; and Prof. George F. Carter of the Johns
Ho])kins TTniversity and his wife. Nothing whatever strange was
going on. Roth had brought with him the galley proofs of his forth-
coming book. Dilemma in Japan, and asked me to read them. The
material for this book had all been cleared by United States Navy
security officers.

The papers or manuscript that the three of us Avere discussing,
then, were nothing but the galley or script of a young author who
wanted to get my opinion of his work. There were no Government
docnments involved, nothing was classified or declassified, and there
was absolutely nothing unusual about the entire matter. The alle-
gation that I stated that we were declassifying secret documents is
as absurd as it is untrue.

Professor Moos has supplied me with a memorandum stating his
recollection of the events of that picnic, and I ask leave to file this
memorandum as part of this record.

Senator Tydtnos. That will be done. Do you want to read it ? Who
is the memorandum from?



STATE DEPAKTMEJXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 431

Dr. Laitimore. From Prof. Malcolm C. Moos, of the Johns Hopkins
University.

Senator Tyuixgs. Go ahead, Mr. Fortas, and read it.

Mr. FoKTAs. This is a memorandum on the covering note of trans-
mittal. The note of transmittal is on the letterhead of The Johns
Hopkins University, Department of Political Science, dated April
April 5, 1950, addressed to Mr. Owen Lattimore :

Dear Owen : Enclosed is a meiuorandum which states my recollections of the
picnic at your home on June 3, 194.").
Sincerely yours,

Malcolm Moos.

The memorandum is heailed "Memorandum from ISIalcolm Moos
provided at the request of Owen Lattimore."

In response to your request, the following is my recollection of the events
of Sunday, .lune 3, 1945, at your house :

Mr. Lattimore had met my fiancee and me on the Johns Hopkins campus one day
either late in May or early in .June and asked us to come out to his home for a pic-
nic on Sunday, June 3. At the time I had known Mr. Lattimore approximately
6 months, during which time I had been associated with him as a colleague at
the Johns Hopkins University. We arrived at the Lattimore home about 11
o'clock Sunday morning. When we were introduced to Mr. Service and Lieuten-
ant Koth they were out in front of the Lattimore house working on some galley
proofs. I did not examine the galley proofs, but Lieutenant Roth told me they
were the galleys for a book he had written on Japan. He also told me that the
book was to l)e publi.shed by Little, Brown Co., of Boston. Insofar as I am able
to reconstruct the day I believe Koth and Service spent a good part of it working
on the galleys. We spent the day quite informally enjoying the grounds about
the home and looking at various objects the Lattimores had collected in their
travels.

Dr. George Carter, his wife, and their two children arrived shortly after we
did. The only time everyone present (there was also a young woman present
whose name I do not recall) was together was around 2 o'clock when we all
gathered in the woods a short distance from the Lattimore house to roast ham-
burgers over an open fire. Following the picnic, Roth and Service went back
to reading galleys, and I recall Mr. Lattimore going out in back of his home with
a scythe to cut down some weeds. I remember chatting with him for some time
while he was engaged in this chore.

My wife and I do not recall seeing any documents during the day. but do
remember that Roth and Service were preoccupied much of the time with galley
proofs.

Late in the afternoon either (ieorge Carter, Mrs. Lattimore, or I called a cab
from Towson, and somewhere around 4 : 30 or Tt p. m. the Carters with their two
children, and my fiancee, and I left the Lattimoi-e home. Roth and Service
wore still there at the time we left. In Towson my fiancee and I took a street-
car for Baltimore and said good-by to the Carters.

Dr. Latti^iore. Third, Senator McCarthy tries to prove my Red
taint by connectinjr me with Henry Wallace. He alleges that I ac-
companied Henry Wallace on a trip through the Far East in 1944; he
insinuates that I had something to do with an alleged report that the
then Vice President made upon his return from the trip ; and he says
that Mr. Wallace recommended to President Roosevelt in 1941 that
my name be sugge.'^ted to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek as his politi-
cal adA'iser. The facts are these :

I first met IVIr. Wallace in 1942 when, as the Generalissimo's adviser,
I took General Hsiung Shih-hui. head of the Chinese Military Mis-
sion, to call on him as Vice President. I do not recall meeting him
again until 1944, the year when I was appointed to Mr. Wallace's
mission to Siberia and China in my oflicial capacity as representative
of the Office of War Information.



432 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION

Senator Ttdings. That is Colonel Donovan's old outfit; was it not?

Dr. Lattimore. That was after Colonel Donovan's original outfit
had been divided into OWI and OSS.

Senator Tydings. I remember now.

Dr. Lattimore. I had no cloak and no dagger, sir.

Throughout the mission, not being a member of the diplomatic
service, I was quite properly excluded from high-level interviews and
discussions, except on one occasion when I served as supplementary
interpreter.

I did not know about tlie existence of a Wallace report until it was
mentioned in the newspapers, and certainly was not consulted about it.

I returned from the mission, as other members of the mission can
testify, convinced that Mr. Wallace was not a man I would support
politically. I opposed his candidacy for the Presidency.

My apointment as adviser to Chiang Kai-shek was in 1941. I did
not then know Mr. Wallace and do not believe he recommended me.
I believe that President Koosevelt consulted the late Isaiah Bowman,
president of the Johns Plopkins University, whose opinion he valued
highly.

Fourth, Senator McCarthy bases his charge that I am a Comnm-
nist sympatliizer on the fact that I was listed as a sponsor of a con-
ference called by the Maryland Association for Democratic Rights.
I confess that I remember nothing about this. I checked, however,
with our local library, and I discover the following facts :

The conference was in 1940, not 1944 — 3 years before Senator Mc-
Carthy says its parent organization was declared subversive. It was
held in Emmanuel Church, Baltimore, under the chairmanship of
Rev. Theodore P. Ferris, the highly respected Episcopal clergyman
of that church, who had asked me to sponsor it. A long list of
sponsors included William F. Cochran, Dr. Gertrude Bussey, Mrs.
Henry Corner, Dr. Jonas Friedenwald, Mr. Sidney Hollander, and
many other substantial citizens of Baltimore. I did not attend the
conference and had no further connection with the organization. Ac-
cording to the records in the Enoch Pratt Free Library it held another
conference in January 1941, after which it seems to have died.

I offer for your files a photostat of the program of the meeting which
I sponsored.

Senator Ttdikgs. May I see that? Just pause a moment, if you
will.

Senator Lodge. What was the reason for having this conference?

Dr. Lattimore. I don't even remember. Senator. As I say, I had
to look back in the files.

Senator Tydings. Was that your only contact with this organiza-
tion ?

Dr. Lattimore, Absolutely my only contact.

Senator Tydings. You never were present on any other occasion,
except this one in the church ?

Dr. Lattimore, No, sir ; I sponsored it at the invitation of a friend
who asked me to sponsor it.

Senator Tydings, It will be filed in the record, as exhibit 72, unless
the committee has some other questions.

Doctor, you may proceed,

Dr, Lattimore. Fifth, Senator McCarthy also mentions a secret
letter which he says I wrote to my "boss," Joseph Barnes, when I



STATE DEPARTME]S"T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 433

Avorked for the Office of War Information, dealing with Chinese per-
sonnel in the New York office. Barnes was not my boss. We were
exact eqnals, he being Deputy Director of the Overseas Branch of the
OWI in charge of Atlantic operations while I had an equivalent title,
in charge of Pacific operations, in the San Francisco office.

I do not recall writing a letter on the subject of Chinese personnel,
but I maj' well have written one. At this time many delicate questions
arose in connection with our foreign-born personnel. We afforded fa-
cilities to Allied governments to send out their own broadcasts, under
their own names, but we also employed foreign-born personnel for
Voice of America broadcasts, and we maintained a strict watch to see
that these latter programs were under complete American control, not
influenced by the politics of the home countries of those who worked
for us as language experts.

This meant that they could not be in the pay of their own govern-
ments and at the same time act as the Voice of America. All of the
Chinese employed by me in San Francisco, where we had a Chinese
staff of 10 or 12 people, naturally had Kuomintang sympathies, or were
Nationalist in their views, and our relations with the Chinese Con-
sulate and Information Service were cordial — but we had to make
sure with the Chinese, as we did with other nationalities, that they
were only in our pay.

If I wrote the letter from which Mr. McCarthy has read quota-
tions — which, if we can judge from his other quotations, are probably
out of context — it was written in the knowledge that Mr. Barnes thor-
oughly understood this underlying principle and that it was therefore
not necessary to spell it out.

I may well have been worried about Chinese personnel at this time.
I was aware of rival factions seeking to organize the Chinese in Amer-
ica under the control of rival cliques within the Kuomintang. Nat-
urally, this raised delicate questions for me, as all Chinese were aware
of my recent close relations to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.

The Chinese in our San Francisco office, like all other personnel,
were under close supervision. In New York I remember a Mr. Chew
Hong, whom Senator McCarthy mentions, because he had served in the
American Army — on a language-teaching mission in Assam, if I
remember rightly. I placed great reliance on Dr. Chi, an older man.
I had known him in China where he was, as Senator McCarthy has
said, an important figure in his own province. I had also known his
son, during the early L930's in New York, and in 1941 and 1942 in
Chungldng, where he held a high position in the Bank of China and
was very much in the confidence of Dr. H. H. Kung, then Chinese
Minister of Finance.

I have had no contact with either Dr. Chi or his son since the end of
the war when Dr. Chi returned to China. I have heard that he re-
mained in Peking, like most other university professors, after the
Communists took over. I have also heard that his son has taken serv-
ice under the new Communist-controlled government, like many other
high officials formerly in the Kuomintang government.

I do not recall sending suggestions to New York to hire or fire
any specific personnel, and I have been unable to obtain access to this
letter. Senator McCarthy boasts of the fact, despite his use of the
letter, that it is still classified as secret.



434 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION

I do recall the New China Daily News of New York. I understand
that it is now a fellow-traveling paper of the Communist government
in Pekin. At that time, however, it was not Communist,^ and the
name "New China"' had no significance at all. All kinds of restaurants
and other Chinese enterprises in America are called New China.

I have here two letters from Philip E. Lilienthal, who was in charge
of the Chinese desk in San Francisco, and Claude A. Buss, who suc-
ceeded me at San Francisco, describing my policy in handling Chinese
personnel. I offer these for the record.

Senator Tydings. Mr. Fortas, do you wish to read them?

Mr. Fortas. I shall. Senator.

Senator Tydtngs. Go ahead.

Mr. Fortas. This letter, addressed to me, is dated March 31, 1950,
from Palo Alto, Calif. :

Mr. Abe Forta.s,

Ring Biiihlinff, Washinf/ton, D. C.

Dear Mr. Fortas : Mrs. Eleanor Lattimore has invited me to tell yon of my
i-eaction to Senator McCarth.v's charge that Owen Lattimore songlit, while Direc-
tor of the Oftice of War Information in San Francisco during the war, to secure
the dismissal of employees who were in sympathy witli Generalissimo Chiang
Kai-shek. I have not yet seen a published report of Senator McCarthy's remarlis
that gives his precise language. It may nevertheless, be helpful to offer the
following information, which is based on my experience while Chief of the Chinese
Division in the San Francisco Office of War Information (OWI).

When Mr. Lattimore hired me as Chief of the Chinese Division in the San
Francisco OWI, he did so on the explicit understanding that I would participate
in the national effort to support the Chinese Government in its resistance to the
common enemy, Japan. There was only one Chinese Government, and its head was
Chiang Kai-shek. At no time did Mr. Lattimore — or anyone else in the San
Francisco office — offer the slightest grounds for questioning the sincerity of his
interest in strengtliening the legal Government of China.

As Chief of the Cliinese Division, I alone was responsible for employing and
dismissing members within the Division. As far as I can recall now, only one
Chinese member of the Division was dismissed between the time that I joined
the OWI (.January 194.3) and the time that Mr. Lattimore departed for Wash-
ington. That individual was dismissed for two reasons: lack of ability, and re-
fusal to adapt his personal life to the needs of the office. I do not Iielieve that
Mr. Lattimore was consulted before or after this man's dismissal ; in any case,
he was discharged on my initiative. The political views of members of the
Cliinese Division were at no time of interest to persons in authority over them;
"security" was the proper province of other, qualified agencies of the Govern-
jnent, aiul it was assumed that unfit persons would not receive "clearance"
by these agencies.

While he was in charge of the San Francisco office of the OWI, Mr. Lattimore
made earnest and continuing efforts to work in close cooperation with repre-
sentatives of the Chinese Government. He encouraged me to maintain informal
contact with oflicials of the consulate general of China in San Francisco and to
discuss our activities with them as far as security regulations would allow.
On several occasions ]\Ir. Lattimore invited Dr. Yui Ming, who was at that time
head of the local Chinese News Service (an official agency of the Chinese Ministry
of Information in Chungking), to attend OWI policy meetings. This privilege
was extended, I 'believe, because of Dr. Yui's ability — ability which the Chinese
Government recognized by subsequently promoting him to positions of increasing
responsibility. On several occasions Dr. Yiii expressed to me his confidence in
INIi'. Lattimore's sagacity, and his satisfaction that Mr. Lattimore, rather than
someone with less understanding of the needs of the Chinese Government, was
in charge of the OWI in San Francisco.

Please feel free to make whatever use you wish of the foregoing statements.